Questions and Answers - May 8

1. DAVID BENNETT
(National—Hamilton East) to the Minister
of Finance: What reports has he received about
increasingly broad-based growth in the
economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of
Finance): Quite a range of reports. Building
consents are at their highest level since 2007 and almost
double the number of consents for new houses issued 3 years
ago. Yesterday’s announcement of 41 new special housing
areas in Auckland will fast track 18,000 more houses.
Business confidence remains high and it is flowing through
to increased investments, supporting longer-term
productivity and wages. Yesterday’s employment figures
show 84,000 more jobs in the year to March, the largest
increase in employment since 2004. The BNZBusiness New
Zealand Performance of Manufacturing Index shows 19
consecutive months of manufacturing growth, and, despite a
strong exchange rate, annual exports recently passed $50
billion for the first time.

David
Bennett: How does growth in employment over the
last 3 years compare to forecasts for jobs growth in
previous Budgets?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In
Budget 2010 there was a forecast of 174,000 additional jobs
in the economy by mid-2014. Yesterday’s figures confirm we
are on track to meet these forecasts. Including the 84,000
new jobs created in the past year alone, there have been
160,000 jobs created since Budget 2010. I can also confirm
we are ahead of job forecasts for the two Budgets and two
half-year updates in 2012 and 2013. We are seeing increased
confidence in our economy, more people investing, and more
employment—that is, New Zealanders who did not have jobs
getting jobs.

David Bennett: What
evidence has he seen that increasing employment and rising
wages are contributing to increasingly broad-based
growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yesterday’s
survey showed reasonably encouraging employment growth,
although I acknowledge that it is not yet sufficient to
reduce unemployment to the desirable levels that we would
like to see. The survey does show encouraging growth in the
regions and for traditionally disadvantaged groups.
Employment growth in the year to March was strong in
Auckland and Canterbury, but even without those centres
employment increased 24,200—for instance, in the Bay of
Plenty by 12 percent and in Otago by 7 percent. Youth
employment increased by 15,600. Employment among Māori was
up by 5.8 percent in the year to March, and among Pacific
people employment was up by 8 percent. Next week’s Budget
is about building on these gains and locking them in for all
New Zealanders.

David Bennett: How will
next week’s Budget continue the Government’s support for
higher wages and more jobs for New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget will underpin
the conditions that allow for more investment and more jobs.
Around 170,000 jobs are forecast to be added to the economy
by mid 2018. The average full-time wage is forecast to
increase to $62,300, up from $48,700 in 2010. The
unemployment rate is expected to fall to 4.4 percent. These
forecasts, of course, depend on ongoing control of
Government expenditure, so interest rates are not pushed
higher than necessary, and also some cooling in the housing
market, again to make sure interest rates do not go higher
than necessary.

Hon David Parker: How can
he say the benefits of economic growth are being shared
broadly when yesterday’s official figures showed the
annual increase in the median wage was the lowest in 13
years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member keeps
using a measure of wages that is not the one that is used,
for instance, to set national superannuation. I take it from
Labour’s policy that it is going to change the basis of
setting relativity between national superannuation and
wages. The average wage is the appropriate measure, and real
average wages continue to rise, because wages are rising
faster than the cost of living. Not every New Zealander has
had the wage rise they want.

Hon David
Parker: Is the broad-based growth he is referring
to the enormous growth in house prices, up by 40 percent in
Auckland to over $650,000; is it not the truth that it is
the dropping homeownership and growing inequality that are
broad based?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, that
is not correct. One policy that will certainly create
inequality is Labour’s variable savings rate, which could
cut the take-home pay of thousands of New Zealanders by up
to 15 percent if they are forced into a compulsory scheme.
That would certainly make inequality worse.

Hon
David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
As you are aware, the Minister has no responsibility for
other parties’ policies and should not misrepresent
them.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the
member to go back and look at his two supplementary
questions that he asked, and the wording to the effect “Is
it not the truth?”. The Minister took the opportunity to
respond the way he did.

Hon David Parker:
I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr
SPEAKER: Can I just clarify, because I do not want
to start the day—

Hon David Parker: I
am seeking clarification.

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! If the member is seeking clarification, I will listen
to it.

Hon David Parker: I am seeking a
clarification as to whether it is now in order for the
Government to state what it believes Opposition parties’
policies to be, because that would be a new
ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: No. What I am saying
is that the member asked two questions, and the Minister in
his response addressed the questions to my
satisfaction.

Hon David Parker: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:
Can I just clarify now that this is a fresh point of order,
because my patience may not last for too much longer with Mr
Parker.

Hon David Parker: It is a further
clarification.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear
one more clarification.

Hon David Parker:
I did not say that he had not addressed the question. My
point of order was not that he had not addressed the
question, but that he has no responsibility for Opposition
party policy and should not misrepresent it.

Mr
SPEAKER: The member is right in that the Minister
does not have responsibility for Opposition party policy,
but he can certainly bring a recent announcement by an
Opposition party into his answer.

Budget
2014—Expenditure Figures

2. Hon DAVID
PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the
Minister of Finance: Does he have
confidence in the expenditure figures used in Budget
2014?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of
Finance): The Budget is next week so the member
will have to see just what the figures are. We do have
confidence in the expenditure figures because this
Government has taken a considered and consistent approach to
controlling Government expenditure by focusing on getting
better results for New Zealanders and their
communities—that is, higher levels of achievement in
school, lower levels of reoffending, and less child
violence. Because we are getting good results like sharply
dropping crime rates, we are able to control
expenditure.

Hon David Parker: Why is
there an agreement between the Hon Gerry Brownlee and the
former Mayor of Christchurch Bob Parker to exempt the
council 3-year plan from normal auditing processes until the
end of 2014, after the election?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: Well, you would need to talk to Mr
Brownlee or Mr Parker about the details of that arrangement.
What I can reassure the member about is that the Government
is fully behind the recovery of Christchurch. Financing has
not been a barrier or a hold-up to that recovery. We have
invested up to $15 billion in the rebuild of Christchurch,
despite the fact that we have had a recession and large
deficits, and we will continue to invest more through this
Budget.

Hon David Parker: Why does he
have confidence in the estimated Canterbury rebuild costs in
the upcoming Budget when it is clear from the KordaMentha
report released yesterday that he is trading off the
Christchurch rebuild for his arbitrary micro-surplus in
Budget 2014?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the
member is fantasising there, I can assure him of that. It is
not a surprise that there is ongoing discussion between the
Christchurch City Council, which has very significant
financial burdens to shoulder, and the Government, which has
indicated an open willingness to support the rebuild of
Christchurch. I expect that those discussions will continue.
There will be differences of views about figures, there will
be negotiations, but there will certainly be further
progress in the rebuild.

Hon David
Parker: I seek leave to table the KordaMentha
report, which shows a $534 million underestimate of
council—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to
table that particular KordaMentha report. Is there any
objection? There is none. It can be tabled. Document, by
leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Gerry
Brownlee: I seek leave to table the revised figure
that was put together by the Christchurch City Council, the
Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, and Treasury,
along with other assistance, post the figure used by
KordaMentha—the figure that the council agreed was
appropriate for the cost-sharing agreement.

Mr
SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular
document. Is there any objection? There is none. Document,
by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon
David Parker: Does he agree with the decision by
the Hon Gerry Brownlee to commission Morrison Low to review
the KordaMentha report; if so, why has it taken so long for
the Government to consider an independent audit to find the
true cost of the rebuild, or is not the truth of it just
that he is delaying it until after the Budget?

Hon
BILL ENGLISH: The member is simply wrong. The
Government and the Christchurch City Council have been in
discussion for at least 2 years over these issues. It has
taken quite some time, particularly for the council but also
for the Government, to understand the impact of the
earthquake on Christchurch’s finances, but I have to say
the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery has been
exemplary in his focus on the detail of the financial
arrangements. I can reassure

the House that the $15
billion committed by this Government to the rebuild of
Christchurch is dayby- day achieving value for money and we
will get a result we are proud of.

Hon David
Parker: Will he revise the timing of the estimated
Canterbury rebuild costs in his upcoming Budget, now that
Fletcher Building has been downgraded by market analysts,
due to the slow Canterbury rebuild progress, leading to
sharply lower earnings?

Hon BILL ENGLISH:
As the member has pointed out, if Fletcher’s does not win
all the tenders, it is hardly our fault. The numbers around
Christchurch are revised regularly. What is actually
striking is that estimates made 2 or 3 years ago, including
for insurance liabilities, have proven to be remarkably
stable. We have not had to deal with large, unexpected
changes in the Government’s finances. The discussion with
the Christchurch City Council will continue. Some of the
numbers are agreed, some of them are disputed—that is
hardly unusual.

Housing, Affordable—Progress in
Auckland and Christchurch

3. MELISSA LEE
(National) to the Minister of
Housing: What progress is the Government making in
addressing the housing supply and affordability issues,
particularly in Auckland and Christchurch?

Hon Dr
NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): Yesterday I
announced, with Mayor of Auckland Len Brown, a further 41
special housing areas, with the capacity for an additional
18,000 homes. This is on top of the 22 special housing areas
announced last October and December, and brings the total
special housing areas to 63, with the potential for over
33,000 plus homes. Work has also begun on the fourth
tranche, which I expect to announce in August. I am also
very encouraged by the latest building consent figures,
which show the highest new house build rate in 7 years. In
Christchurch an all-time record of 3,000 homes were built
during the last year. In Auckland 6,500 homes were built,
which is 40 percent up on last year. Nationally the house
build rate has increased from 13,000 per year to 23,000 per
year—that is, with increasing economic confidence and the
Government changes in the regulatory environment, we are now
building 10,000 more houses per year.

Melissa
Lee: Has the Minister seen claims the Government is
using Housing New Zealand as a cash cow, and can the
Minister say how much money the Government is giving, and
what it is getting, in dividends since it has been in
Government, and how this compares with
previously?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just waiting to see
whether you were going to rule on a question that did not
have one or two legs but had four, and whether that sort of
question is now acceptable as a supplementary question in
the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I am certainly not
going to rule it out. The question may have multiple legs.
Many members ask supplementary questions with multiple legs.
The Minister may then choose to answer just one of
those.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you will find there are
multiple Speakers’ rulings that say that supplementary
questions are meant to have one leg but are sometimes
allowed two. That question had four legs. It is a horse and
it is baying like a donkey.

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! The member will resume his seat. The question has
been asked. I am not ruling it out.

Hon Dr NICK
SMITH: The cash-cow claims are made by talking
about only—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot
hear the answer, because of the level of interjection that
is coming from my left-hand side. It will
cease.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The cash-cow
claims are made by talking about only the dividend from
Housing New Zealand and not the huge Government payments of
over half a billion dollars a year.

Phil
Twyford: Rubbish.

Hon Dr NICK
SMITH: Let me give the member the full numbers. The
Government has increased the funding for housing vulnerable
families every year that we have been in Government. The
Government payment to Housing New Zealand has increased by
33 percent from $474 million

in 2008 to $633 million this
year. It is also true that Housing New Zealand pays a
dividend. The largest dividend that Housing New Zealand has
ever made was $176 million.

Hon Tony
Ryall: When?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH:
In 2003. The average dividend under the 5 years so far of
this Government has been $88 million. The dividend this year
is $90 million.

Phil Twyford: What about
the net contribution? Talk about the net.

Hon Dr
NICK SMITH: The member asks rightly: “What’s
the net?”. Let me give him the figures. The net figure
under the last year of the previous Government was $341
million. The net figure, averaged over the last 5 years,
under this Government is $478 million—$478 million more
that the Government is putting into Housing New Zealand in
each of the 5 years. We see the trickiness from Mr
Cunliffe—

Melissa Lee: What
progress has the Government made in negotiating further
housing accords?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I
have completed discussions in Christchurch and a draft
accord has been agreed, which is now subject to council
consultation. It involves the Government partnering with the
council to provide hundreds more houses for families in
difficulty, on top of the hundreds already being built by
Housing New Zealand and the temporary villages that are
already operating. The Government is looking to contribute
an additional $75 million on top of the over $1 billion that
is being invested by Housing New Zealand and the millions
that we have spent on temporary accommodation, on temporary
allowances, and in growing the social housing projects with
community providers. I am also in discussions on further
housing accords in Wellington, in the Bay of Plenty, and
this week I am having discussions in Queenstown. I seek
leave of the House to table both sides of figures: the
dividends as well as the Government contributions to Housing
New Zealand since 2000, provided to me by
officials.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to
table that particular information. Is there any objection?
There is none. It can be tabled. Document, by leave, laid on
the Table of the House.

Immigration
Policy—Consultation

4. HOLLY WALKER
(Green) to the Minister of
Immigration: Has he discussed issues relating to
his immigration portfolio at Cabinet Club events; if so, on
how many occasions?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE
(Minister of Immigration): I have no ministerial
responsibility for “Cabinet club” events. I attend a
number of events in my capacity as a National MP, and I
discuss a range of issues and canvass my role as an MP from
time to time. I also discuss matters that relate to all my
portfolios, including immigration.

Holly
Walker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This
question was set down on notice and accepted by the
Clerk’s Office—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!
[Interruption] Order! It is a question that is a marginal
question. It has been allowed through after some discussion
between the member who lodged the question and the Clerk. In
these circumstances I am giving a fairly wide leeway to the
way in which a Minister answers such a question, and on this
occasion he has addressed the question to my
satisfaction.

Holly Walker: Did he ever
meet Donghua Liu at a “Cabinet club” event; if so did
they discuss the immigrant investor category?

Hon
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In answer to the first part of
that question, no.

Holly Walker: Does he
think that Donghua Liu and others who paid thousands of
dollars to meet him at meetings of the “Cabinet club”
Chinese branch—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That
statement has just been denied by the Minister in the answer
to the previous question.

Hon Trevor
Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The
member said that the gentleman paid the money to meet
him—paid the money—

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! [Interruption] Order! I will allow the member to ask
the question again if I have missed it, but, if I recall the
answer given by the Minister, the member is now effectively
disputing the answer that was just given by the
Minister.

Holly Walker: I can rephrase
the question. Does he think that anyone who has paid
thousands of dollars to meet him at meetings of the
“Cabinet club” Chinese branch has done so because he was
a National list MP or because he was the Minister of
Immigration?

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the
Minister to answer that in as far as there is ministerial
responsibility.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I
have no responsibility for “Cabinet club”
events.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of
order, Mr Speaker. The question was not whether he was
responsible. The question was, did he understand himself to
be attending those events in his ministerial capacity in the
context of those meetings? That is within his purview to
answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Yes,
and—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I
will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry
Brownlee: The Minister made it very clear at the
start that he attends a lot of meetings as a National member
of Parliament. That should have given the questioner a fair
guide. I think we have got to be very careful that we do not
end up using question time on, I would say, the collision
that there is between the executive and the House of
Representatives, and effectively have a question time that
regularly impugns the reputation of members of Parliament.
We do not get, for example, to ask whether it is appropriate
for a political party to have a cash for clemency
arrangement with Dotcom.

Grant Robertson:
The issue here, I think, is that the primary question was
allowed and it did make reference to the Minister and
“Cabinet club” in the question. The supplementary
question that Holly Walker asked—the Minister has
responsibility for himself, for his actions as a Minister.
She asked in that supplementary question: when he was at a
particular event, was he there as the Minister? To just get
up and say: “I don’t have responsibility for that.” is
not, I think, an acceptable answer. He could get up and say:
“When I’m there, I don’t think I’m the Minister.”
and that would be him answering in accordance with both the
question that is here and his responsibility, but just
saying that he has no responsibility when you have accepted
the primary question, I do not think can
stand.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The first
point is that the Minister said he had no responsibility for
“Cabinet club” arrangements. He has no more
responsibility for arrangements that are made by National
Party branches around the country than Grant Robertson does
for Labour Party branches around the country, nor does he
have any greater accountability than Grant Robertson would
for the use of the war room on the third floor for Labour
Party campaigning purposes. There are lots of areas where
these things can be questioned. There is only one side of
the House that has to answer the questions, and the Standing
Orders should not be used to work in a way that impugns the
reputation of members of Parliament who are
simply—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! I am going to ask the member to continue with the
point of order. I am having trouble hearing it now
because—[Interruption] Order! If the member wishes to stay
for the balance of question time, she can also be quiet when
I am on my feet.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The
point is that it would be an odd thing if Ministers, in
particular, did not speak about their portfolios when they
are talking to groups of New Zealanders, regardless of the
circumstances. I am speaking, for example, tomorrow at
lunchtime to a group who I know have paid to be there. I am
not being paid. The National Party is not getting any money
from it, but the group itself is getting it. The problem
here is—

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s
your job.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gave a
warning to the left-hand side of my House that if there was
discussion during a point of order, a member would be
ejected from this Chamber. It is very close to that on this
occasion. I want to hear this point of
order.

Grant Robertson: Point of order,
Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I am hearing a
point of order, Mr Robertson.

Hon Gerry
Brownlee: Interestingly, in his interjection the
Hon Trevor Mallard made a valid point when he said:
“That’s your job.” Politicians speak about politics. I
am not responsible for the organisation that has invited me
to be there tomorrow, but I am delighted to be there and to
have the opportunity to give a very popular political
message—something that troubles our
opponents.

Grant Robertson: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:
Is the member speaking to the point of
order?

Grant Robertson: I am. I have two
points I wanted to make. The first of those is that there
will be disorder in the House when a person taking a point
of order introduces material that is not a point of order
and that makes false accusations about another party. So
although I understand your frustration at the noise, it is
caused by the person taking the point of order. The second
point I want to make in response to Mr Brownlee’s point of
order is that there is a world of difference between going
to speak at an engagement as a Minister in this way and
something called the “Cabinet club”—or clubs, sorry,
for those who do not understand; “Cabinet clubs”—that
implies that they are a Minister. You have clearly accepted
the question on the basis that there is something about the
name “Cabinet clubs” that means that a Minister has some
level of responsibility for that. Mr Woodhouse should at
least answer the question, rather than simply say that he
does not have responsibility.

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! The first point that I would make to the member is
that the question has been accepted because it asks the
member about discussions he had relating to his ministerial
responsibility, not specifically the attendance at any
“Cabinet club” or other fund-raising event. The
difficulty I now have is that it is so long ago since the
question was asked and answered that I think, to clarify the
matter, we will go back to that stage. But before I allow
that to happen, I say that at the time I was relatively
comfortable with the way the Minister did answer that
question in light of this difficult line that members face
here in determining their role as a Minister, where they
have ministerial responsibilities, and the role that every
member of this House has as a member of a political party.
All members are involved to some extent in concerns around
the funding of their political parties. Where that crosses
the line is a difficult and grey area, but I will go back to
listening to the question carefully and listening to the
answer, and then we will move forward.

Holly
Walker: Does he think that attendees who paid
thousands of dollars to meet him—

Hon Gerry
Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In
this circumstance, that is an imputation that is completely
unacceptable.

Metiria Turei: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. You have already accepted this
question as legitimate when you first allowed it through.
You have asked my colleague to repeat that question. It is
not appropriate for Gerry Brownlee to now contest your
ruling that she now be allowed to repeat her
question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think it
is a very fair point that has been raised, but I do warn the
member that in making a statement like that within a
question, it gives a fairly wide licence to the Minister who
is then going to answer the question. Holly Walker, could we
get the question completed.

Holly Walker:
Does he think that attendees who paid thousands of dollars
to meet him—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I
raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am now going to ask
you to refer to the Standing Order that makes that question
in order. I am not disputing issues about whether the
primary question is valid, but this is an important point.
It would be like us asking whether the people who pay
thousands of dollars to go to the Green Party conference,
etc., are gaining—

Hon Members: Ha,
ha!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, they might
laugh—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member
will resume his seat. That question, according to the
Standing Orders, is not strictly in order, but most
questions that are asked in this House day after day do not
adhere strictly to the Standing Orders. I have allowed the
question to be asked. It is to be repeated, and then we can
move forward by listening to the answer from the
Minister.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders are there
for a number of reasons, and one of those reasons is to
protect members. Although I accept that often questions do
stray beyond the strict bounds of Standing Order 377(1)
through to (5), in this case, because the attempt of the
questioner is to inflict reputational damage—which is
completely undue—I think it is appropriate that the
question is confined to the parameters of the Standing
Orders.

Holly Walker: I raise a point of
order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do
not need assistance. I have a lot of sympathy for the point
the member is making, but he could consider where this
matter has got to in the House. I listened to the question.
I allowed it in the first place. On many occasions, I go
back and look at the Hansard subsequently, and when you look
at the supplementary questions that have been asked, I
perhaps should have ruled them out of order. In this case I
let it through on the first occasion, and to progress this
matter, I have invited the member—having let it through on
the first occasion—to repeat it. That is where the matter
lies. It may upset Mr Brownlee, but that is the way we are
going to move forward on this matter. [Interruption]
Order!

Holly Walker: Does he think
attendees who paid thousands of dollars to meet him at
meetings of the “Cabinet club” Chinese branch did so
because he was a National list MP or because he was the
Minister of Immigration?

Hon MICHAEL
WOODHOUSE: The questioner asks for an opinion about
events over which I have no ministerial responsibility and,
therefore, it would be inappropriate of me to offer such an
opinion.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has any
member of his office staff, paid for by Ministerial
Services, attended any “Cabinet club” meetings with him?
And you have got to say yes.

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! That is unacceptable. The question has been asked; we
will listen for the response.

Hon MICHAEL
WOODHOUSE: I do not have the information with me to
answer that question, but if the member would like to put
the question down in writing, I would be very happy to give
him an answer.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has he
fulfilled his obligations under paragraph 2.53 of the
Cabinet Manual by attending a chapter of a group that
charges recent immigrants more than long-term New Zealand
citizens?

Mr SPEAKER: In as far as there
is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Michael
Woodhouse.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I must
confess I am not sure what the member is asking, but I have
every confidence that I have complied with all aspects of
the Cabinet Manual.

Holly Walker: We are only just
getting started, Mr Speaker. Was it wise for him, as
Minister of Immigration, to attend a “Cabinet club”
Chinese branch event, given the risk outlined on the radio
this morning by the former president of the Chinese
Association that many new migrants may think it is possible
to buy influence with Government Ministers because that is
how business is done in their home countries?

Hon
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Mr
Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! I am just waiting for a bit of a—the Hon Michael
Woodhouse.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will
repeat my answer to the primary question, which was that I
attend a number of events in a variety of forums wearing my
hat as a member of Parliament or as a member of a party, and
in my ministerial responsibility. As a guest, I generally do
not have any

knowledge about the circumstances that lead
to the other people in those events being there, so in that
sense it would be inappropriate of me to offer an
opinion.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Can the
Minister say whether he has ever attended a meeting at the
wellknown Coatesville Mansion, where he might have discussed
with the occupant the possibility of accepting an enormous
amount of cash to not only give him immigration preference
or citizenship but also to give him clemency against the
law?

Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of
order, Mr Speaker. That question had no relevance to the
primary question, and it had not been introduced in any of
the answers.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise
a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER:
I will hear from the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon
Trevor Mallard: I thought that the point of order
would be another one. I thought you would have ruled the
question out because, of course, it refers to a matter
before the court. Mr Banks is the person who got the bag of
money.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not ruling the
question out.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I
can give the member and this House an absolute guarantee
that that has not happened, nor is it ever going to happen
in the foreseeable future—unlike other members of this
House.

Holly Walker: If he is not engaged
in cash for access, how come people who cannot pay to meet
him, like Murdoch Stephens, who runs the Doing Our Bit
campaign to double New Zealand’s refugee quota, cannot get
a meeting with him despite repeated requests, and people who
pay thousands of dollars through the “Cabinet club”
can?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am not
aware of whether or not Mr Stephens has sought a meeting,
but I am in reasonably frequent dialogue with him on social
media, and I am very happy to hear from him in the future.
[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am just
waiting for the Hon Annette King.

Holly
Walker: Would he agree that one way to help protect
him from the awkward situation he has found himself in today
would be for the Government to introduce a ministerial
disclosure regime like that proposed by the Green Party,
under which Ministers would report on who they discuss
Government policy with in the interests of transparency and
fairness?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, in so far as
there is ministerial responsibility.

Hon MICHAEL
WOODHOUSE: I refute the preface to the question. I
am in no such awkward situation and need no such
protection.

Holly Walker: How can he
credibly argue that he did not attend these events in his
ministerial capacity when he is the Minister of Immigration
and he met with would-be migrants keen to discuss
immigration policy at an event called the “Cabinet
club”?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I repeat:
I speak to a number of people in a number of forums: at the
supermarket, at the service station, at the airport, in
“Cabinet club” meetings, and in public meetings. They
are interested in articulating their views on immigration
policy, and I am happy to hear from them.

Hon
Gerry Brownlee: Given that he is now answering
questions on the “Cabinet club”, does he ever think it
likely that a Green member of Parliament would be a welcome
speaker at such an event?

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! Now that has stepped across the boundary. There is no
ministerial responsibility. [Interruption] Order! Question
No. 5, Phil Twyford. [Interruption] Order! I have called Mr
Twyford.

Housing,
Affordable—Homeownership

5. PHIL
TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the
Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his
statement, “The Government is committed to supporting as
many Kiwi families as possible to

achieve the goal of
owning their own home”; if so, is homeownership increasing
or decreasing according to the latest Census?

Hon
Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I am totally
committed to getting as many Kiwi families as possible into
homeownership. That is why the Government has an active work
programme on land supply, fast tracking consenting,
development contributions, materials, projects like Weymouth
and Hobsonville, Welcome Home Loans, KiwiSaver first-home
deposit subsidies, and on our economic policies that are
keeping interest rates lower for longer. The latest census
data shows homeownership rates of 65 percent and a 2 percent
decline over the preceding 7 years, covering both Labour and
National periods in office. These rates declined every year
under the previous Government, when house prices doubled and
interest rates soared. I note that independent measures of
housing affordability show they were at their worst in 2008
and have improved by 25 percent in the term of this
Government.

Phil Twyford: To what extent
will the collapse in homeownership on his watch be worsened
by the collapse in affordability—the biggest monthly drop
in affordability in 12 years—and record house prices in
Auckland, up $86,000 in Auckland in the past year, and why
does he think that parroting historical data from years ago
helps Kiwi families now to get into their own
homes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am very keen
to share with the House the independent house affordability
data that is collected both by Demographia and also by
Roost. Both of those data show that housing affordability
has improved. Let me give you the national results. The
Roost Home Loan Affordability Report, which measures average
house prices, average incomes, and interest rates, showed
that the average in New Zealand was 83.4 percent—that is,
a person on the average income with an 80 percent mortgage
would need to spend 83.4 percent of that income on servicing
a mortgage. That figure is currently at 57.6 percent. That
is an improvement of 25 percent since that member’s party
was in Government.

Phil Twyford: Can he
confirm that the Roost Home Loan Affordability Report
indicated that the March figures were the biggest monthly
drop in home affordability in 12 years?

Hon Dr
NICK SMITH: I am happy to share the housing
affordability data studied by the Roost survey. Let me give
the numbers. Nationally, it peaked at 83.4 percent in 2008.
Currently, it was 57.6 percent in March 2013, and 58.7
percent in February 2014. If we look at Auckland, the
Auckland data peaked at its worst in the previous
Government’s last year in office, when 101 percent of an
average Aucklander’s income would be required to service
an 80 percent mortgage. The current figure is 77.6 percent,
an improvement in Auckland of about 23 percent under this
Government.

Phil Twyford: I raise a point
of order, Mr Speaker. I deliberately asked a very narrow and
specific question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I
will invite the member to ask that question
again.

Phil Twyford: Can the Minister
confirm that the Roost Home Loan Affordability Report for
March indicated that the month of March saw the biggest drop
in home affordability in 12 years?

Hon Dr NICK
SMITH: The figures that I have been provided with
by officials are that the Roost survey March 2014 data
showed that the average New Zealand family would need to
spend 57.6 percent of their income. What it also showed was
that figure was 83.4 percent in 2008.

Phil
Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I
repeated at your direction a very specific
question.

Mr SPEAKER: And I have sympathy
for the member. The member has put the question twice now.
The answer has been given, and we can certainly say it
addressed it. Whether it was to the member’s satisfaction
or the House’s satisfaction is for the member and the
House to decide. The member has further
supplementaries.

Grant Robertson: Can we
have a vote?

Mr SPEAKER: No, you cannot
have a vote, Mr Robertson.

Phil Twyford:
How many of the 18,000 new homes he promised yesterday will
be affordable for average Kiwi families when Auckland real
estate agents are now marketing $800,000 homes as
affordable, or is $800,000 affordable under his failed
housing policies, when houses in Auckland have risen by $235
a day over the past year on his watch?

Hon Dr NICK
SMITH: I would note that largest increase in
Auckland house prices occurred between 2000 and
2008—

Phil Twyford: That’s
history.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —when they
more than doubled. The member can say that it is history,
but actually it is the changes that occurred over that
decade that have really made the marked decline in housing
ownership and housing affordability. In terms of the 18,000
houses that we are freeing up the regulation to build, the
reality is that unless you are going to install a Stalinist
economy where the Government and councils decide the price
people can sell their home for, nobody in this Parliament
can say exactly what those houses will sell for. What all
the economic data shows, though, including the latest report
from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, is that
the best way to make houses more affordable is to get rid of
the stupid metropolitan urban limit that was strongly
endorsed by members opposite.

Phil
Twyford: Were the 18,000 houses that he promised
yesterday included in the 39,000 houses he has already
promised for Auckland—are they new houses or is he
double-counting again—and why will these new special
housing areas be more successful than the last ones when
only 13 resource consents were issued in the first 6 months
of his special housing areas being in
operation?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is no
question that the level of house building in Auckland is
growing at an all-time rate. It has increased by 40 percent.
The number of building consents—

Phil
Twyford: That’s not true. That’s simply not
true.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the number
of building consents this year is hugely increased on last
year, and is continuing to grow. The 18,000 additional homes
announced in the special housing areas is part of the
delivery of those 39,000 homes in the accord, and just show
how successfully this Government is working with the
Auckland Council to address the affordability issues that
developed in Auckland when the previous Labour Government
allowed house prices to double.

Phil
Twyford: Is he proud of the fact that house prices
are skyrocketing to the highest levels in history, that
families are being shut out of homeownership in record
numbers, that interest rates are rising, that speculators
are having a field day, and that absentee foreign ownership
is rampant, and will he now concede that he should have just
adopted Labour’s popular KiwiBuild policy?

Hon
Dr NICK SMITH: I am more than happy to comment on
KiwiBuild. It is about as stupid as saying that the way to
get food prices down is to have the Government own all the
supermarkets, or that the way to get car prices down is to
have the Government own all the car companies. I would note
that since the Opposition announced its KiwiBuild policy,
the private sector is actually building 10,000 more houses
per year by increasing confidence and getting the regulatory
environment correct.

Drugs, Control—Removal of
Psychoactive Substances from Market

6.
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to the
Minister of Police: What steps are the
Police taking to ensure psychoactive substances are removed
from the market?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of
Police): From today all psychoactive substances
must be removed from the market. It is now illegal to
possess, supply, and sell these products. In the lead-up to
the new law coming into force, police and Ministry of Health
enforcement officers visited retailers and provided advice
on the psychoactive product recall, how to comply with the
recall, and what addiction services are available for users.
At midnight police began Operation Recall, which will see
all 148 licensed retailers visited to ensure they have taken
appropriate steps to remove these products from sale and
return them to suppliers. This operation is prioritising
those retailers who

trade 24/7 or who have previously been
identified as high-volume or problem traders. By lunchtime
over half of all retailers had been visited and all were
complying with the new law.

Mike Sabin:
How will the police ensure that psychoactive substances
remain off the market following Operation
Recall?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Police and
Ministry of Health enforcement officers will continue to
monitor the situation and respond to community concerns.
There will be ongoing visits to retailers to ensure that the
products remain off the shelves, and police will monitor the
internet for illegal advertising and sales. This may include
conducting what they call controlled purchase operations—
which are obviously undercover attempts to buy the
products—to ensure that sales are no longer occurring. But
if members of the public have concerns about the illegal
sale or distribution of these products, I strongly encourage
them to contact the police or Crimestoppers so that the
appropriate enforcement action can be
taken.

7. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to
the Minister of Finance: Will he use a
financial veto on the Parental Leave and Employment
Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill to stop
families from having 26 weeks paid parental
leave?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of
Finance): The member will just have to wait and
see. It will depend on the progress of the bill through the
House. No decision has been made yet, because it is not
required.

Sue Moroney: In response to
that answer, why has National used a range of delaying
tactics, including the threat of a financial veto, an
extension of the report-back date from the Government
Administration Committee, and filibustering on members’
day to prevent a second vote from taking place to progress
extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks?

Mr
SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial
responsibility; the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: I am not sure what the member is referring
to, but the House has processes to ensure that policies that
members propose through members’ bills have the
opportunity to be improved. The member maybe has not taken
all those opportunities.

Sue Moroney:
Given that answer and given that there is a bill currently
before the House from the Labour Party that proposes to
extend paid parental leave, will he propose amendments to
that bill to progress any proposals to extend paid parental
leave and therefore honour the commitment made by his party
to me last year, or will he play politics and continue to
delay and oppose that bill?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: I have to say that we spend a bit less
time worrying about the progress of Labour members’ bills
than we do about ensuring that the Government sustains its
ability to support hundreds of thousands of families. The
Labour Party has picked out one group that it favours. It is
not the only group of families. The Government will continue
with its position, which it has always had, and that is that
when the extension of paid parental leave, which currently
costs around $370 million or more, is affordable, we will
look at it.

Sue Moroney: Can he assure
the House, then, that his proposal for families who are
currently not eligible for paid parental leave will be
superior to the $60 per week extra these families would get
under Labour’s Best Start package?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: It is hard to know what families would get
under Labour’s Best Start policy, because Labour is
confused about it itself and has misled the public by not
announcing that it was abolishing some support for families.
So the answer is no. We find it difficult to compare
because, like most Labour policies, it is misleading and
hard to understand.

Sue Moroney: Does he
accept, then, that Colmar Brunton found that 62 percent of
New Zealanders support Labour’s bill to extend paid
parental leave to 26 weeks, that the select committee heard
submissions where 99.6 percent were in favour, that the bill
has a parliamentary

majority, and that the only thing
standing between families and 26 weeks of paid parental
leave is National’s financial veto?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: I am surprised it was only 62 percent.
What happened to the other 38 percent who did not support
getting some extra free stuff from the Government? The
Government, of course, has got to balance up the natural
desire of New Zealanders to see children better supported
with the long-run sustainability of those schemes. I would
have to say that New Zealand families have done an extremely
good job through difficult times, and we have been able to
sustain extensive support for families through the
recession. As the economy continues to recover, we might
have more choices.

Minerals Exploration, Central
North Island—Pureora Forest Park

8.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister
of Energy and Resources: Will he rule out granting
mineral exploration permits in Pureora Forest
Park?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and
Resources): Kia ora to the member. No. As has been
the case for many years in New Zealand, any operator who
wants to undertake exploration activity in any conservation
area, excluding schedule 4 land and World Heritage sites,
would first need to meet all the strict regulatory
requirements set out by the Department of Conservation and
also the local authorities.

Catherine
Delahunty: Why would the Minister grant an
exploration permit over some of our precious conservation
land that could allow drilling rigs, construction of
sedimentation ponds, and cutting down of some of our last
remaining ancient tōtara?

Hon SIMON
BRIDGES: I appreciate the member’s
pre-announcement publicity, but I will be making
announcements in relation to the competitive tender tomorrow
and not today.

Catherine Delahunty: Is he
telling Stephen King and others that their protest high up
in the trees of Pureora in the 1970s was for nothing, and
that the trees they sacrificed so much to protect might now
be felled to make way for gold drilling rigs?

Hon
SIMON BRIDGES: No, I am not.

Catherine
Delahunty: Should not visitors to Pureora be able
to hear the haunting call of the endangered kōkako that
live there, rather than the drone of drilling rigs; if so,
will he promise to keep drilling rigs out of the kōkako
habitats?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think that
the kōkako—and the mollyhawks for that matter—will
still be singing loudly for some time to
come.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a charming reply but it
did not answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER:
In my opinion it did address the
question.

Catherine Delahunty: I seek
leave to table this recording of the call of the
kōkako—

Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption]
Order! The member is wasting the time of the
House.

Immigration New Zealand—Investor Plus
Scheme

9. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS
(Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of
Immigration: Did the Government instruct
Immigration New Zealand to review the Investor Plus scheme
of $10 million; if so, for what reason?

Hon
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): The
business migration package was introduced in 2009, with a
scheduled review 1 year after its implementation. That was
reported back to Cabinet in 2011. A further review of the
investor categories commenced in 2012, to check that they
were still fit for purpose, and that review is
ongoing.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: For how
long did he meet with Mr Liu at Mr Liu’s hotel and what
changes to immigration rules did Mr Liu specifically ask
for?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The meeting
lasted for about 1 hour, and I cannot be more specific about
the exact changes that were called for. There was certainly
a question mark about

whether the $10 million threshold
was too high. I pointed out to him, as I have to many
others, that simply lowering the threshold would not be
appropriate. I am sure there was a range of other things,
but I cannot recall them right now.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: Can I take it from his primary answer that
he asked for his department to continue work on these
changes and the intention to bring in a third investor
category with absolutely no English language
requirement?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As I
said, the review is ongoing and no options, apart from the
one I mentioned, have been specifically ruled
out.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was the Prime
Minister aware that the Minister of Immigration had arranged
to meet with Mr Liu, and was the Prime Minister’s
awareness before or after the meeting?
[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did
not hear the interjection, unfortunately. I have called
Michael Woodhouse.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE:
I am absolutely certain that the Prime Minister had no
knowledge of the meeting at the time that it was taking
place.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When was
he, as Minister of Immigration, aware that the Prime
Minister supported Mr Liu’s proposed changes to
immigration laws, and was the date of this awareness before
his meeting with Mr Liu?

Hon MICHAEL
WOODHOUSE: I am not aware that the Prime Minister
supports any of the proposed changes that Mr Liu put forward
either then or now.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: I seek leave to table two letters. One is a
letter dated 4 April 2012 pointing out the third category,
about which my questions were shaped, and having these words
in it: “We have received strong expressions of support for
this approach from the Prime Minister.”

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! And the second letter?

Rt
Hon Winston Peters: The second letter is dated 13
February 2012 and it reads: “We look forward to building
on the engagement that one of our members, Mr Liu of the
Alpers Avenue Development Group, had with the Prime
Minister.”

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Those
documents have now been described. Leave is sought to table
those two particular letters. Is there any objection to them
being tabled? There is none. They can be tabled. Documents,
by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Rt Hon
Winston Peters: Is it not a fact from these letters
that the only reason he went on bended knee to a seedy hotel
to speak with a woman-basher was because the
woman-basher—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That
question is out of order. I will give the member the
opportunity to rephrase it, but there is a case before the
courts in this regard at the moment.

Rt Hon
Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr
Speaker. With respect, the man has pleaded guilty to the
offence. It is not sub judice. What is the offence you wish
to raise now?

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am
advised that the matter is before the courts, with a further
hearing in June. That is the advice I have been given. If
the member can get the question in without referring to a
current—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise
a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is your advice from the Clerk
that this matter is sub judice or not?

Mr
SPEAKER: Yes, it is.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: Well, she is wrong.

Mr
SPEAKER: The member is entitled to his opinion. If
he wants to ask—

Rt Hon Winston Peters:
No, no. There are ample Speakers’ rulings that say that a
matter that has been published by the media—and he has
admitted the offence—is capable of being repeated in this
Parliament. I am not referring to his being sentenced. That
is a sub judice matter. I am talking about the offence he
has already acknowledged he committed. That is not sub
judice—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have
heard the point and the member will resume his seat, and I
will seek some advice from the Clerk.

Rt Hon
Winston Peters: Supplementary
question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I will wait.
The member has raised a point of order and I want the advice
first. I am advised that the fact that the matter is before
the court is the important thing and that this House sets
itself a substantially higher standard than what the media
may well do. In that case, I am accepting the Clerk’s
advice that this is sub judice. The member has not had that
question taken off him. He has the opportunity to ask a
question, but it must not refer to the case that is
currently before the court.

Hon Trevor
Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr
Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify
that it is not in any way disputing the ruling I have just
given.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No. What it is
asking you to do—

Mr SPEAKER: What is
the point of order?

Hon Trevor Mallard:
Well, the point of order is to ask you to present a
considered ruling to the House that goes to the background
of the reasons for the sub judice rule, which
are—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard
enough. That is a reasonable request and I will give a
considered ruling.

Rt Hon Winston Peters:
Is it not a fact that the only reason he went on bended knee
to a seedy hotel to speak to a certain person was that that
person had given the National Party $22,000 to let in his
not-so-rich mates who cannot speak English?

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! In as far as there is ministerial
responsibility, the Hon Michael Woodhouse.

Hon
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have no knowledge of or
responsibility for any donations given by one person to
another party. Secondly, as Minister of Immigration I go on
bended knee to no one.

Hon Trevor
Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can
I ask you to reflect on that answer and that the Minister,
who has publicly admitted knowledge of the donation, just
said that he had no knowledge of it.

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! The member has asked me to reflect
on that answer and I will do so.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: I seek leave to table a time line of the
National Party’s Ministers of Immigration Guy and
Woodhouse with Mr Liu.

Mr SPEAKER: Where
is the source of the document?

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: An impeccable source. I prepared it
myself.

Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave.
I think it will be fairly easily decided. Leave is sought to
table that document. Is there any objection? There is
objection.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek
leave to table a National Party “Cabinet club”
initiative set out for the Invercargill electorate, talking
about coming along to hear somebody who one day might
be—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has been well
described. Leave is sought to table that particular
document. Is there any objection? There is none. Document,
by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Rt Hon
Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a “Cabinet
club” 2014 subscription, at $1,000 a pop, from the
Invercargill electorate.

Mr SPEAKER:
Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there
any objection? There is none. Document, by leave, laid on
the Table of the House.

Rt Hon Winston
Peters: I seek leave to table a further document.
It is an invitation—

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! Can I just clarify, because this is now taking—are
there more documents? I want them put all at
once.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: There are
plenty more, but not today. Just this one.

Mr
SPEAKER: This is the last one?

Rt Hon
Winston Peters: That is right.

Mr
SPEAKER: Then I am absolutely delighted. Let us
hear about it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: So
am I, actually, because you can only take so much at once,
can you not?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let us
hear it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: OK. The
third one is an Invercargill “Cabinet club” invite to
come along and hear Judith Collins, the much-vaunted future
leader—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is
sought to table that particular invitation. Is there any
objection? There is none. It can be tabled. Document, by
leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Gerry
Brownlee: I would like to ask the House’s
indulgence to take a little more time than usual for the
tabling of a document, if I am granted leave to table it.
The document I seek to table is a National Party document
from the early 1990s for a fund-raiser where it was touted
that the Rt Hon Winston Peters may well become New
Zealand’s first Māori Prime Minister.

Mr
SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is
there any objection? There is none. Document, by leave, laid
on the Table of the House.

Budget 2014—Rheumatic
Fever Prevention

10. CLAUDETTE HAUITI
(National) to the Minister of
Health: What investment will the Government make in
Budget 2014 to help fight rheumatic fever?

Hon
TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Last week the
Associate Minister of Health, the Hon Tariana Turia, and I
announced that Budget 2014 will invest an extra $20 million
over the next 4 years to combat New Zealand’s high rate of
rheumatic fever, bringing the Government’s total
investment in rheumatic fever prevention to more than $65.3
million over 6 years. Free drop-in sore throat clinics will
be expanded to target a further 90,000 children and young
people who are at risk of getting rheumatic fever. Excellent
work is already going on across the country, and expanding
these initiatives, such as the healthy homes initiatives,
will help reach more families whose children are at risk of
developing this serious illness.

Claudette
Hauiti: What have the results been so far of the
Government’s investment in rheumatic fever
prevention?

Hon TONY RYALL: Between July
and December last year 70,000 children had a sore throat
swabbed at school, and of those 70,000 about 8,000 returned
a positive result for strep throat and were treated. That is
8,000 kids who should be at a significantly lower risk of
contracting rheumatic fever. As we raise public awareness of
this disease we are finding and treating more children, and
this is a very worthwhile investment in New Zealand
children’s health by the John Key - led National
Government.

Youth Unemployment—Statistics for
Māori

11. HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana)
to the Minister of Finance: How is
the Government able to claim its management of the economy
is “on the right track” when Māori youth unemployment
continues to be unacceptably high at 22.1 percent, which is
higher than when they took office, and nearly four times
higher than the latest population-wide unemployment
rate?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of
Finance): An economy headed in the right direction,
including for Māori youth, is one that is growing
consistently and generating thousands of more jobs. We do
have one of those economies. There are a number of ways of
calculating the rate of

unemployment for youth. In the
case of the figure the member mentioned, for instance, about
a third of the 22 percent is classified as caregivers.
However, the number is certainly too high. I have to say
this Government, though, has a good track record of
concentrating on those factors that will assist Māori youth
to get better access to the labour market, such as getting
better results from school, and ensuring that our training
systems actually give those young people qualifications, not
just a place to go to. For instance, National Certificate of
Educational Achievement level 2 achievement by Māori
school-leavers has improved from 44 percent in 2008 to
almost 59 percent in 2013. We are also supporting them
through initiatives such as Youth Guarantee, New Zealand
Apprenticeships, and the persistent work the Māori Party
has done to introduce Māori Trade Training, which has
provided opportunities for hundreds of young Māori. I think
the Government, though, would collectively agree that this
result is not good enough. It is another reason why we need
a persistently growing economy and a strong focus on
results.

Hone Harawira: Does the fact
that tens of thousands of Māori have already left our
shores in search of jobs in Australia mean that the Māori
youth unemployment rate would probably be twice as high as
the current rate of 22.1 percent if they all stayed at
home?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is
something in the view that as fewer people leave New
Zealand—and a lot fewer are leaving—it makes it a bit
more difficult for those who are here and without jobs to
find jobs. I share with the member his concern that too many
Māori have left, particularly the far north, and that is
why it is good to see that he is taking a bit more of a
positive approach to economic development up there. Although
I respect his view that he is opposed to mining, he does, I
understand, work constructively to enable Treaty settlements
in the far north, where several hundreds of millions of
dollars are waiting in the Government’s bank account
simply for Ngāpuhi to agree to accept it.

Hone
Harawira: What kind of future can young Māori
possibly have in Aotearoa, when the statistics show that
they are destined for long-term, consistently high levels of
unemployment under National, and why has this Government,
along with its friends in the Māori Party, failed so
spectacularly to address the appalling racism inherent in
these figures?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think
the difference between the National Party and the Māori
Party, on the one hand, and that member and his fellow
travellers in the Labour Party is that we do not accept that
that is the destiny of young Māori. It does not matter how
many statistics he quotes. It does not matter what the track
record has been. This Government has committed to changing
that trajectory, starting right from participation in early
childhood education through to higher levels of achievement
at secondary school. That is the difference. We do not
accept that being a poor Māori from the far north means you
are destined to no hope. We have set out on the path to give
them hope, and I particularly compliment the Māori Party on
its efforts in that respect.

Hon Nanaia
Mahuta: In light of that response, is it acceptable
that the rate of Māori youth not in employment, education,
or training has stagnated under his Government at 21.9
percent, and that this compounds the fact that long-term
unemployment trends for young Māori is the brighter future
that they can look forward to under a National
Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, it is
not acceptable and that is why this Government has worked
very hard to undo all the damage the last Government did by
wasting hundreds of millions of dollars on training that
took people nowhere and giving young people false hope that
if they went along to some course, they would get a
job.

Grant Robertson: You’ve done
nothing.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In fact, I
invite the members opposite to go along and talk to all the
people involved in Youth Guarantee, in Youth Service, in the
pipeline work that has been done, in the trades academies,
and in the Māori Trade Training programme. They will tell
those members that this Government has done more than any
previous Government. In fact, those members criticised the
Minister of Education for trying too hard and going out and
pushing schools to actually teach these kids.

Immigration
Policy—Consultation

12. Hon TREVOR
MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the
Minister of Immigration: Why did he
personally call on Donghua Liu to receive his
representations on immigration policy following Donghua Liu
making a donation to the National Party?

Hon
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):
Firstly, this was not a personal call. I have no personal
relationship with Mr Liu, and I want to make it absolutely
clear that I have no knowledge or responsibility for
donations to the National Party. When I met Mr Liu in 2013 I
had no idea he had made a donation. I meet with a number of
people up and down the country in my role as the Minister of
Immigration, and there is nothing unusual about
that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: When did he
first become aware that this meeting was controversial as a
result of Mr Liu’s donation?

Mr
SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial
responsibility, the Hon Michael Woodhouse.

Hon
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not accept that the meeting
was controversial then or is controversial now. It is
perfectly appropriate for Ministers to hear from a range of
people on a range of views, and that is what
happened.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did Mr Liu
offer cash?

Mr SPEAKER: I just want to
consider that question. I will allow it. It is a marginal
question. I will allow it, but it gives a very
wide—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. I will give the answer, but I do
want to point out that Speaker’s ruling 50, I think, or
something like that, is very clear about imputations of
corruption on members. That is what that question is. The
answer is emphatically no.

Mr SPEAKER: I
agree—[Interruption] Order! I agree this question is very
close to implying cash for access. I am left with two
choices: to rule it out, which I am tempted to do; or to
leave it there for the Minister to respond to, and it gives
a very wide leeway for the Minister to respond. That is
probably the best way forward on this
occasion.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. In fact, the Minister has
responded and has responded appropriately.

Mr
SPEAKER: I did not hear the response,
then.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, he is
happy to give it again, but the real point here is that
there is a point where Speakers’ rulings and the Standing
Orders can be determined somewhat by what happens in the
House. I did not speak about this at the start of the
question because I am very confident about the position that
the Hon Michael Woodhouse is in, in relation to this, and
because the question comes from someone who is well known
for spraying this sort of thing out there—

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! Stick to the point of
order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: My point,
though, is that I think there has to be some bounds
established by way of a Speaker’s ruling. Otherwise, every
time we hear that someone from the Labour Party, for
example, has gone to speak to someone at a union, we would
be wanting to know how much was involved in that deal, etc.,
etc. Somehow that seems to be acceptable. Similarly, no one
has yet been told how much the Green Party has got from the
visit to the Coatesville mansion.

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! We are now straying from the
original point of order. [Interruption] Order! I am aware of
the difficulty around this question. There was significant
discussion around its acceptance, and, as Speaker’s ruling
153/5 acknowledges, there was the requirement then for some
give and take before the final questioning was accepted. I
am aware that both the Minister and, in fact, the questioner
are unhappy with the question. The issue, then, of allowing
it was, as I say, a marginal call and gave considerable
license to the Minister in response. On reflecting on the
particular supplementary question that has been asked, I
have now decided that it is a supplementary question that
will lead to disorder. It is, effectively, implying cash for
access, and I am ruling that supplementary question out of
order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. I would again just ask you to
look at the question. The question did not in any way imply
that the Minister took the cash that was offered.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a most unhelpful
point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I
raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. I will listen to
the member in a minute. That is most unacceptable and that
equally leads to disorder. That sort of behaviour will leave
me with little choice but to conclude this particular
question. I will hear from the Hon Gerry
Brownlee.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr
Speaker, I called first.

Mr SPEAKER:
Well, I took the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry
Brownlee: The comment made by Trevor Mallard needs
to be expunged from the Hansard record. It is extremely
offensive to everyone on this side of the
House.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member
has taken offence, then the Hon Trevor Mallard will stand
and withdraw that comment. [Interruption] Order! A member
has taken offence at that remark. Some members of the House
have taken offence. I have instructed the Hon Trevor Mallard
to stand and withdraw that remark. [Interruption] Chris
Hipkins will immediately leave the Chamber. Chris Hipkins
withdrew from the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER:
The Hon Trevor Mallard, stand and withdraw that
remark.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I decline to.
It was not unparliamentary.

Mr SPEAKER:
Then the Hon Trevor Mallard will leave the Chamber. Hon
Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.

Rt Hon
Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr
Speaker. May I remind you that when Mr Mallard was taking
his point of order, I was calling at the same time. That is
why—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not see
that and that has been established. Now, would the member
give his point of order and do it rapidly.

Rt Hon
Winston Peters: You have made a ruling based on an
appeal by Mr Brownlee, whose integrity in respect of that
appeal was destroyed when he attacked both the Labour Party
and the Greens during his complaint. Therefore, if that was
a valid complaint he made, why did you not rule him out of
order at the time?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let
me explain it very carefully. As I mentioned earlier,
supplementary questions are questions that I need to make a
relatively quick decision on. For that particular
supplementary question, when I reflected on it and listened
to Mr Brownlee’s point of order I reconsidered my original
decision and ruled the question out of order. That is the
end of that matter. With regard to Mr Brownlee then straying
into some further superfluous information after his point of
order, that was not helpful, and on that occasion I stood
and told Mr Brownlee to cease.

Grant
Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It
is a separate point of order.

Mr SPEAKER:
I am looking forward to it.

Grant
Robertson: During the exchange that took place
before, Anne Tolley made a statement suggesting that the
Labour Party took cash for policy. I take great offence at
that and I would ask that it be withdrawn.

Mr
SPEAKER: I certainly did not hear the interjection.
If that interjection was made by the member, she is now
required to stand and withdraw that comment.

Hon
Anne Tolley: I withdraw.

Grant
Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that he has not
met with Mr Donghua Liu at any other time to discuss
immigration policy?

Hon MICHAEL
WOODHOUSE: Yes, I can.

Grant
Robertson: On how many occasions has Mr Liu raised
or attempted to raise with him specific immigration
cases?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have met
Mr Liu on one occasion, and it was on that occasion that he
raised immigration issues. As far as I can recall, that is
the only time.

Key’s endorsement of English has turned this “contest” into a race for second place.

This succession was well planned. Lets not forget that English was told by Key in September of his intention to resign, and English was the only member of Cabinet entrusted with that information before it was sprung on everyone else on Monday morning. More>>

Latest: Judith Collins and Jonathan Coleman have withdrawn from the leadership race, leaving Bill English the only candidate to replace John Key as Prime Minister.

The New Zealand Dental Association is launching a new consensus statement on Sugary Drinks endorsed by key health organisations. The actions seek to reduce harm caused by sugary drinks consumption. More>>

The Government Communications Security Bureau wants to give internet service providers more information and power to block cyber threats which are increasing, its director told the intelligence and security select committee yesterday.. More>>

ALSO:

Labour: NCEA results for charter schools have been massively overstated... In one case a school reported a 93.3 per cent pass rate when the facts show only 6.7 per cent of leavers achieved NCEA level two. More>>

Following a complaint by Mr Leask, the Ombudsman found that the State Services Commission acted unreasonably in relation to Mr Leask and identified numerous deficiencies in the investigation process and in the publication of the final report and in the criticisms it contained of Mr Leask... More>>

NZEI: New Zealand had only held relatively steady in international rankings in some areas because the average achievement for several other OECD countries had lowered the OECD average -- not because our student achievement has improved. More>>

The resignation of John Key is one thing. The way that Key and his deputy Bill English have screwed the scrum on the leadership succession vote (due on December 12) is something else again. It remains to be seen whether the party caucus – ie, the ambitious likes of Steven Joyce, Judith Collins, Paula Bennett, and Amy Adams – will simply roll over... More>>